Then he said of communism, "I wouldn't think you'd need to fight it... it would just fall apart" and he was right. He described communism as one giant corporation that's terribly inefficient and it finally collapsed under its own weight.

The Khmer Rouge won the Cambodian Civil War when, in 1975, they captured the Cambodian capital and overthrew the government of the Khmer Republic. Following their victory, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Son Sen, and Khieu Samphan installed a government called the Democratic Kampuchea and immediately set about forcibly depopulating the country's cities, murdering hundreds of thousands of their perceived political opponents and carrying out the Cambodian genocide in which 1.5 to 3 million people (around 25% of Cambodia's population) died.

The Khmer Rouge regime was highly autocratic, xenophobic, paranoid, and repressive. The genocide was under the guise of the Khmer Rouge enforcing its social engineering policies.[1] Its attempts at agricultural reform led to widespread famine, while its insistence on absolute self-sufficiency, even in the supply of medicine, led to the death of thousands from treatable diseases such as malaria. Part of the purification included numerous genocides of Cambodian minorities. Arbitrary executions and torture were carried out by its cadres against perceived subversive elements, or during genocidal purges[2] of its own ranks between 1975 and 1978.

The regime was removed from power in 1979 when Vietnam invaded Cambodia and quickly destroyed most of the Khmer Rouge's army.

True, but if one's prejudice regarding rules revolves entirely around either might makes right or right makes might, "good" and "bad" become considerably more clear cut. And here it is being "one of us" or "one of them" that makes all the difference in the world.

It is only in a "moderation, negotiation and compromise" world that one can realistically "struggle to decide who prevails".

There is a struggle in all three of your cases. I don't know why you don't see it.

How ought one to live? Well, suppose philosophy really is essentially impotent here?

Would you abandon philosophy if you thought that?

These are the sorts of questions which make no sense to me.

If one looks at something like the Judgement of Solomon, one learns from it that there are many ways to solve a problem, that the most obvious approach may not be effective and generally that there are many ways of evaluating any situation. That alone is an important lesson which makes philosophy permanently valuable. It can't subsequently "become impotent". The lesson is always a factor in "how ought one to live?".

If the lesson you learned is that "babies ought to be cut in half in order to solve problems", then you might see philosophy as impotent and worth abandoning when faced with a problem which does not involve babies.

Yeah or I could just get busy and accidentally vote with my feet. But I've seen some changes since I've been here: people call each other names less and seem to be improving their content. I think people want to be better, but need to know what "better" is. The seed has been planted simply because we started talking about it. No great acumen is responsible; just someone had the balls to challenge authority and he wasn't crucified.

Then he said of communism, "I wouldn't think you'd need to fight it... it would just fall apart" and he was right. He described communism as one giant corporation that's terribly inefficient and it finally collapsed under its own weight.

The Khmer Rouge won the Cambodian Civil War when, in 1975, they captured the Cambodian capital and overthrew the government of the Khmer Republic. Following their victory, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Son Sen, and Khieu Samphan installed a government called the Democratic Kampuchea and immediately set about forcibly depopulating the country's cities, murdering hundreds of thousands of their perceived political opponents and carrying out the Cambodian genocide in which 1.5 to 3 million people (around 25% of Cambodia's population) died.

The Khmer Rouge regime was highly autocratic, xenophobic, paranoid, and repressive. The genocide was under the guise of the Khmer Rouge enforcing its social engineering policies.[1] Its attempts at agricultural reform led to widespread famine, while its insistence on absolute self-sufficiency, even in the supply of medicine, led to the death of thousands from treatable diseases such as malaria. Part of the purification included numerous genocides of Cambodian minorities. Arbitrary executions and torture were carried out by its cadres against perceived subversive elements, or during genocidal purges[2] of its own ranks between 1975 and 1978.

The regime was removed from power in 1979 when Vietnam invaded Cambodia and quickly destroyed most of the Khmer Rouge's army.

Yeah or I could just get busy and accidentally vote with my feet. But I've seen some changes since I've been here: people call each other names less and seem to be improving their content. I think people want to be better, but need to know what "better" is. The seed has been planted simply because we started talking about it. No great acumen is responsible; just someone had the balls to challenge authority and he wasn't crucified.

Serendipper wrote:Really, the only true good and bad is in thinking there is a good and bad. In order to have the good, you must have the bad and to have a population in heaven requires the damnation of others and so the whole ideology is a root of evil, that is, if you consider atrocity a bad thing.

I think it was Jordan Peterson or one of those guys Stefan typically has on who said "If you think you'd be a benevolent dictator, then that is indication that you wouldn't."

Whatever the particular context -- genetic modification, communism, righteous crusades, benevolent dictatorships -- there is going to a distinction between what you can in fact establish as true for all of us objectively, and that which you believe to be true "in your head" here and now, but in which there are conflicting narratives and political agendas regarding the extent to which it may or may not be true for all of us.

But even the established facts are open to interpretations. Yes, it might be pointed out by some, Communism did seem to collapse by itself. But that's only because the manner in which it was pursued was the wrong way. Or because its enemies were successful in destabilizing it --- forcing it to expend huge sums on the military and defense, forcing it to presume there were spies and saboteurs around every corner, forcing it to become all that more repressive.

There are always going to be ways in which to interpret "the facts" so as to sustain your own political prejudices.

Here we can all agree on any number of facts. Chief among them [re this thread] is that in order to participate in the forums we are expected to follow the rules. We can agree that there are rules. We can agree that the rules were established by particular individuals for particular reasons. We can all agree that the rules are enforced unevenly...or not enforced at all in some cases.

My point then is always to take issue with those who insist that if you think about rules in a philosophy forum in the optimal manner, you will think like they do. That, in fact, objectively, the optimal rules can be established.

And that conflicts of this sort invariably come to revolve around one or another inherently problematic combination of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Not counting the fucking Kids of course.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:but in which there are conflicting narratives and political agendas regarding the extent to which it may or may not be true for all of us.

Has it been established that what is true for all of us is better than what is true for some of us?

But even the established facts are open to interpretations. Yes, it might be pointed out by some, Communism did seem to collapse by itself. But that's only because the manner in which it was pursued was the wrong way.

It wasn't true communism? That's what they say about capitalism; that it's not true capitalism. So not-true capitalism beat not-true communism

Or because its enemies were successful in destabilizing it

Well that would be like saying a fighter only won because he managed to destabilized his opponent with punches. All is fair in love and war.

--- forcing it to expend huge sums on the military and defense,

It didn't bother the US to spend huge amounts on military.

forcing it to presume there were spies and saboteurs around every corner, forcing it to become all that more repressive.

More of what it already was... that's the Darwin award, right? When something doesn't work, it goes extinct.

There are always going to be ways in which to interpret "the facts" so as to sustain your own political prejudices.

I suppose so. I think the US has a few unfair advantages: 2 big oceans, smart people like to immigrate, lots of fertile soil, and abundant natural resources. With that in mind, it's hard to judge the outcome of the cold war. What if the situation were reversed?

My point then is always to take issue with those who insist that if you think about rules in a philosophy forum in the optimal manner, you will think like they do. That, in fact, objectively, the optimal rules can be established.

Well that would be like saying a fighter only won because he managed to destabilized his opponent with punches. All is fair in love and war.

If the function of a government is to beat other governments, this makes sense, but if a boxer beats the shit out of my surgeon in the operating room that doesn't mean he's the best guy to start digging into my innards.

My point then is always to take issue with those who insist that if you think about rules in a philosophy forum in the optimal manner, you will think like they do. That, in fact, objectively, the optimal rules can be established.

The second sentence is quite different and not a conclusion based on the first. A person insisting implies over resistance that is not being integrated. I am pretty certain some forums have obtained optimal rules for their participants. Optimal rules would be those that lead to what the participants want to have happen happen. I've experienced groups with structures that did just that according to we the participants.

Well that would be like saying a fighter only won because he managed to destabilized his opponent with punches. All is fair in love and war.

If the function of a government is to beat other governments, this makes sense, but if a boxer beats the shit out of my surgeon in the operating room that doesn't mean he's the best guy to start digging into my innards.

A gov is responsible for the welfare of its citizens and if that means undermining an enemy, then so be it. That's different from the surgeon/boxer analogy.

My point then is always to take issue with those who insist that if you think about rules in a philosophy forum in the optimal manner, you will think like they do. That, in fact, objectively, the optimal rules can be established.

The second sentence is quite different and not a conclusion based on the first. A person insisting implies over resistance that is not being integrated. I am pretty certain some forums have obtained optimal rules for their participants. Optimal rules would be those that lead to what the participants want to have happen happen. I've experienced groups with structures that did just that according to we the participants.

I thought you were arguing against rules? Anyway, I can't see objective-anything, much less objective rules.

Optimal rules (subjective) can merely mean the rules that are least bad. If there is a rule that we must have 5 rules, then which rules do we pick so as to be least intrusive? Trashy's forum had a rule that new members cannot pm other members and they cannot post links for 7 days and he couldn't figure out how to turn it off. Since I couldn't pm him on his own site, I had to come back here to contact him because of the rule. Rules intrude upon freedom and if they don't, then they aren't rules.

Serendipper wrote:A gov is responsible for the welfare of its citizens and if that means undermining an enemy, then so be it. That's different from the surgeon/boxer analogy.

That is one responsibility. Being a good boxer in relation to another gov does not mean it is a good gov. Further the above assumes that the boxer did not create, provoke the enemy and that we, the citizens, needed that enemy undermined.

My neighborhood is controlled by a mafia. Let's say that in fact another little mafia wants to take over. 'Mine' defeats the other - iow is a good boxer. Maybe it is worse at other facets of running the neighborhood than the defeated mafia. Other non-boxing related skills. Perhaps both suck. Perhaps the false dilemma of the choice between them is a fog over the truth.

My dad beats up a guy who is bullying me, who happeans to be another dad. On the other hand my dad is sexually abusing me. Just cause he beat up the other father doesn't mean is a good dad or even a better dad. I am not arguing this analogy fits the US vs. the USSR, just that I think your argument is problematic, even before we look at the choice as a false dilemma - two bad dads that is.

I thought you were arguing against rules? Anyway, I can't see objective-anything, much less objective rules.

I ended up on structure. I see patterns of interaction instead of rules, though they may be experienced very similarly by participants.

Optimal rules (subjective) can merely mean the rules that are least bad. If there is a rule that we must have 5 rules, then which rules do we pick so as to be least intrusive? Trashy's forum had a rule that new members cannot pm other members and they cannot post links for 7 days and he couldn't figure out how to turn it off. Since I couldn't pm him on his own site, I had to come back here to contact him because of the rule. Rules intrude upon freedom and if they don't, then they aren't rules.

Many groups have to have rules since they do not have an architectural format, like an online forum does. A theater group will have rules, like 'we meet tuesdays at 7' and each director chooses the play and whatever. I was also against limitations on free speech, and rooting for the use of shame and shunning to sideline problematic communication. It might not work with this group. But the architecture here functions like rules. Any post can be quoted for example.

Serendipper wrote:A gov is responsible for the welfare of its citizens and if that means undermining an enemy, then so be it. That's different from the surgeon/boxer analogy.

That is one responsibility. Being a good boxer in relation to another gov does not mean it is a good gov. Further the above assumes that the boxer did not create, provoke the enemy and that we, the citizens, needed that enemy undermined.

Yes, of course, that is assumed. I'm not sure why communism would need to be undermined to benefit the citizens of a capitalist country, but there could be a reason. Perhaps to nip in the bud a growing communist movement within the capitalist country that is seen as objectively bad.

My neighborhood is controlled by a mafia. Let's say that in fact another little mafia wants to take over. 'Mine' defeats the other - iow is a good boxer. Maybe it is worse at other facets of running the neighborhood than the defeated mafia. Other non-boxing related skills. Perhaps both suck. Perhaps the false dilemma of the choice between them is a fog over the truth.

Perhaps, but what survives, survives and that's how evolution works. That reminds me of a movie:

Will : My father was not a pirate. [takes out his sword]

Jack : Put it away, son. It’s not worth you getting beat again.

Will : You didn’t beat me. you ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I’d killed you.

Jack : Then that's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it? [moves one of the sails so that the yard catches Will and swings him out over the sea] Now, as long as you’re just hanging there, pay attention. The only rules that really matter are these – what a man can do and what a man can’t do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can’t. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you’ll have to square with that someday. Now, me, for example, I can let you drown but I can’t bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesy, savvy? So… [swings him back on board and offers him his sword] can you sail under the command of a pirate? Or can you not?

My dad beats up a guy who is bullying me, who happeans to be another dad. On the other hand my dad is sexually abusing me. Just cause he beat up the other father doesn't mean is a good dad or even a better dad. I am not arguing this analogy fits the US vs. the USSR, just that I think your argument is problematic, even before we look at the choice as a false dilemma - two bad dads that is.

No, but the guy probably won't bully you anymore, which means you now only have to deal with the sexual abuse.

Optimal rules (subjective) can merely mean the rules that are least bad. If there is a rule that we must have 5 rules, then which rules do we pick so as to be least intrusive? Trashy's forum had a rule that new members cannot pm other members and they cannot post links for 7 days and he couldn't figure out how to turn it off. Since I couldn't pm him on his own site, I had to come back here to contact him because of the rule. Rules intrude upon freedom and if they don't, then they aren't rules.

Many groups have to have rules since they do not have an architectural format, like an online forum does. A theater group will have rules, like 'we meet tuesdays at 7' and each director chooses the play and whatever. I was also against limitations on free speech, and rooting for the use of shame and shunning to sideline problematic communication. It might not work with this group. But the architecture here functions like rules. Any post can be quoted for example.

Some rules can be said to be definitions: we meet at 7 for theater. It's not a rule that must be obeyed, but is an opportunity that is seized for enjoyment of theater. The rule inside the theater is not to shoot people, which removes my freedom from shooting people, but wasn't something I wanted to do anyway and since I do not want to be shot, I concede to the rule and necessary enforcement. The problem now becomes a slippery slope of more rules.

Serendipper wrote:Yes, of course, that is assumed. I'm not sure why communism would need to be undermined to benefit the citizens of a capitalist country, but there could be a reason. Perhaps to nip in the bud a growing communist movement within the capitalist country that is seen as objectively bad

Yes, I am not making the case they were not enemies, though I do think the having an enemy pleased facets of the US.

Perhaps, but what survives, survives and that's how evolution works.

Evolution tends to work with a lot of collaboration and predators, for example, tend not to wipe out prey. And grazers tend not to wipe out other grazers, say. Some species merge. Others participate in complicated indirect relations,indirectly supporting each other. Did you know that batches of trees in a grove, who have interconnecting root systems will send water to the trees of other species that are in trouble during drought. There is no argument possible against 'what survives,survives' but communism is not dead, since we have memories and there are places that do function in communist ways, even if they are small. Will it return on a larger scale. Will it combine with parts of capitalism? Will its demise, later, more complete, be the reason homo sapiens die off? Was the killing of it off what will give the earth to the cockroaches?

And we fight evolution all the time. It is part of the pride of both communist and capitalism nations that they do not just let natural selection take place. They handle it in different, inconsistent ways and not all the time, but both, without using those terms pass laws to protect the elderly who cannot breed, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, the poor and so on. I don't think it makes sense to give even the slight moral tinge to something being like evolution. Part of why humans have done so well is that they, like other social mammals, fight natural selection. Of course they also kill like maniacs on occasion.

Will : My father was not a pirate. [takes out his sword]

Jack : Put it away, son. It’s not worth you getting beat again.

Will : You didn’t beat me. you ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I’d killed you.

Jack : Then that's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it? [moves one of the sails so that the yard catches Will and swings him out over the sea] Now, as long as you’re just hanging there, pay attention. The only rules that really matter are these – what a man can do and what a man can’t do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can’t. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you’ll have to square with that someday. Now, me, for example, I can let you drown but I can’t bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesy, savvy? So… [swings him back on board and offers him his sword] can you sail under the command of a pirate? Or can you not?

No, but the guy probably won't bully you anymore, which means you now only have to deal with the sexual abuse.

Right, but the point I was arguing against was not that one. The point I was arguing about was that defeating something else means what defeats it is better or good.

[

Some rules can be said to be definitions: we meet at 7 for theater. It's not a rule that must be obeyed, but is an opportunity that is seized for enjoyment of theater. The rule inside the theater is not to shoot people, which removes my freedom from shooting people, but wasn't something I wanted to do anyway and since I do not want to be shot, I concede to the rule and necessary enforcement. The problem now becomes a slippery slope of more rules.

I agree. I was thinking more of a group who is putting no the play. So if you don't show up, you don't get to act. You can stubbornly come a different evening, but generally people get that coming the same night as other people is optimal. You don't need a rule, in a sense, but that would be the case with most optimal rules in well functioning groups. The have enough in common and common enogh goals to work together well.

Evolution is the destruction of one state (or person) in such a way as to produce a "stronger" state or person. But the goal of the original person was not to die out and leave something behind that would be stronger. If that goal is consciously chosen, evolution no longer works. For evolution to work, one must resist it at all cost. It is by not being able to resist evolution sufficiently that evolution wins the battle and destroys the weaker state, leaving only the stronger. But if evolution is intentionally chosen, the new state is the result of a prior choice, not a prior contest of strength.

It just happens to appear that way. They do sometimes wipe out prey, but then wipe themselves out in the process.

Did you know that batches of trees in a grove, who have interconnecting root systems will send water to the trees of other species that are in trouble during drought.

No I didn't know that. I just suffered a drought in 2016 that killed lots of trees. As far as I could tell, they were in competition. March of 2017 I had a big fire going 24hrs a day all month. This spring one of my peach trees didn't leaf out and I'm hoping my sugar maple will soon. I'm literally sick to my stomach just thinking about the devastation. Poplars were hit hard with the whole top dying and then rebranching from the bottom.

As far as I know, trees can't direct water movement as they are slave to transpiration from the leaves which suck water from the ground. That's one reason why it's so hard to grow grass under trees.. they suck the ground dry... literally.

There is no argument possible against 'what survives,survives' but communism is not dead, since we have memories and there are places that do function in communist ways, even if they are small.

Well, they killed the movement, I think. Not each individual, but the impetus.

Will it return on a larger scale. Will it combine with parts of capitalism? Will its demise, later, more complete, be the reason homo sapiens die off? Was the killing of it off what will give the earth to the cockroaches?

Lots of things could wipe us out, but evolution will overcome it.

And we fight evolution all the time.

And we will always lose. Evolution is the force that overcomes resistance.

It is part of the pride of both communist and capitalism nations that they do not just let natural selection take place.

In a way, it is natural selection. We are not unnatural.

They handle it in different, inconsistent ways and not all the time, but both, without using those terms pass laws to protect the elderly who cannot breed, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, the poor and so on. I don't think it makes sense to give even the slight moral tinge to something being like evolution. Part of why humans have done so well is that they, like other social mammals, fight natural selection. Of course they also kill like maniacs on occasion.

We fight natural selection with antibiotics which empowers natural selection to select for strains that resist our drugs. We fight natural selection with herbicides which empowers natural selection to favor weeds that resist chemicals. We can't put out fires with gasoline and by trying to solve our problems we sometimes fan the flames.

In other ways, we are natural selection. We are currently selecting masculine women and feminine men. All domesticated animals have been selected for by us and the only reason they exist is that we guard them. All of our food has been naturally selected by us: tomatoes, corn, taters, beans, you name it. None of that existed before we made it, er, selected it.

It's not a discontinuous process with us on one side being artificial and nature on the other being natural. We are continuous with the universe and are every bit as natural. We are both on the receiving end of selection and the causative end, as is every other creature.

No, but the guy probably won't bully you anymore, which means you now only have to deal with the sexual abuse.

Right, but the point I was arguing against was not that one. The point I was arguing about was that defeating something else means what defeats it is better or good.

What is better or good? What survives is the test for what is good. "Good" cannot be presumed or evolution would be pointless. All of this would be pointless if the universe already knew what it was going out to discover.

Except, again, there is a great deal of collaboration, even fusing of different species - lichens, our own cells - symbiotic crossspecies relationships and more.

[i]Evolution is the destruction of one state (or person) in such a way as to produce a "stronger" state or person.

No, that's a myth, the 'stronger' part. It would be adapted to the new situation better. It might be smaller and weaker. It might simply be different, not stronger, but suited.

It just happens to appear that way. They do sometimes wipe out prey, but then wipe themselves out in the process.

I said 'tend'. Sure it happens, we are the best example. But, again, there is no need to eliminate, even other predators. Evolution applied to government memes - USvsUSSR or capitalism vs. communism - does not indicate any pro to eliminating the competition. Often it is a bad move, as you indicate.

As far as I know, trees can't direct water movement as they are slave to transpiration from the leaves which suck water from the ground. That's one reason why it's so hard to grow grass under trees.. they suck the ground dry... literally.

And we will always lose. Evolution is the force that overcomes resistance.

Again, that's not true. We have been keeping problematic genes going through social support. This is true of other social mammals. We reduce natural selection all the time.

In a way, it is natural selection. We are not unnatural.

I am not arguing that we are unnatural. I am arguing against the purist natural selection getting rid of the weak conception of evolution. That evolution we successfully resist. IOW it is not a full image of evolution, and neither is what gets called natural selection. The moment you see things like evolution weeding out the weak, it is a sign you are dealing with an incomplete view of evolution - a social darwinism, a popularized version, a Spencerian version, and a problematic version.

We fight natural selection with antibiotics which empowers natural selection to select for strains that resist our drugs. We fight natural selection with herbicides which empowers natural selection to favor weeds that resist chemicals. We can't put out fires with gasoline and by trying to solve our problems we sometimes fan the flames.

Sure, there's that. But that's not the only way. It is not dependent on technology, even elephants do this. And, of course, not all technology has these kinds of feedback problems.

In other ways, we are natural selection. We are currently selecting masculine women and feminine men. All domesticated animals have been selected for by us and the only reason they exist is that we guard them. All of our food has been naturally selected by us: tomatoes, corn, taters, beans, you name it. None of that existed before we made it, er, selected it.

Right, all those plants are pussies. Lol.

What is better or good? What survives is the test for what is good. "Good" cannot be presumed or evolution would be pointless. All of this would be pointless if the universe already knew what it was going out to discover.

OK, but it seemed like you were saying that capitalism was better since it undermined communism. I was questioning that in specific. Now you seem to be questioning the idea of evaluating good or better at all. IOW you are argreeing with my conclusion but supporting it with an argument at a higher level of abstraction, one which contradicts your first evaluation.

Except, again, there is a great deal of collaboration, even fusing of different species - lichens, our own cells - symbiotic crossspecies relationships and more.

Sure, but collaboration is incidental to the selective process because the process continues whether or not collaboration exists.

Evolution is the destruction of one state (or person) in such a way as to produce a "stronger" state or person.

No, that's a myth, the 'stronger' part. It would be adapted to the new situation better. It might be smaller and weaker. It might simply be different, not stronger, but suited.

Well that's Jame's words, not mine, but "stronger" is a subjective term. Let's take the bacterial example: if antibiotics are used, then evolution will overcome the antibiotic resistance. Coincidentally: Man has 'world's worst' super-gonorrhoea

Now if the antibiotics go away, then there will no longer be a challenge to natural selection so the bacteria will devolve into "weaker" strains. This is the theory regarding syphilis, that it's a harmless bacteria if it's allowed to circulate in a population, but when clothing and cleanliness interfere with that process, it evolves into a more virulent strain. In order to evolve (as in move forward, not backwards), there must be a challenge or resistance to overcome.

As far as I know, trees can't direct water movement as they are slave to transpiration from the leaves which suck water from the ground. That's one reason why it's so hard to grow grass under trees.. they suck the ground dry... literally.

Yes, this one I knew about. It's the fungal contribution of water to the roots. I was thankful I had put woodchips on my trees before that drought hit.

https://boingboing.net/2017/01/02/the-sophisticated-hidden-ways.html

I have some problems with this one.

[i] If sick trees die, they fall, which open gaps in the canopy. The climate becomes hotter and drier and the environment becomes worse for the trees that remain.[/i]

I don't agree with that. Trees give up their lives for the ones that remain. I've seen it 100s of times. A smaller tree that didn't compete for light as well will whither and die then fall over and decay and feed the soil and the taller trees that were more genetically equipped to thrive in the particular environment. There is no advantage to trees nursing sick trees, especially during a drought. I'm struggling to keep my forest thick as possible and can assure you there is no truth to that claim... not that I can see, but I sincerely wish there were.

Now, yes, plants do communicate through the roots and they may even feed each other in competition with other species, but when it comes down to one tree vs another, family loyalty goes out the window. The best thing a sick tree can do for the species is to die and feed the remaining trees, which is why I'm a beggar for woodchips.

The tree has no leaves to create sugars, so the only explanation is that it has been supported by neighboring trees for more than four centuries.

It's not that the neighboring trees were feeding the stump, but feeding the bacteria in the ground and the stump was stealing the sugar. The bacteria produce N in exchange for sugar. I actually pour sugar on my pepper plants to get more peppers.

That article is a lot of hippie communal idealism. Plants are vicious competitors in reality.

Lots of things could wipe us out, but evolution will overcome it.

Evolution is an infallible process? This evolution, on this planet?

Well it's the random, exhaustive, and unrelenting process of problem solving, so it would seem infallible. If there is a way at all to overcome, it will be found and exploited.

And we fight evolution all the time.

And we will always lose. Evolution is the force that overcomes resistance.

Again, that's not true. We have been keeping problematic genes going through social support. This is true of other social mammals. We reduce natural selection all the time.

It's not over yet, give it time. Anyway, social support is a product of evolution, so it's difficult to tell what is the result and what is the resistance.

In a way, it is natural selection. We are not unnatural.

I am not arguing that we are unnatural. I am arguing against the purist natural selection getting rid of the weak conception of evolution. That evolution we successfully resist. IOW it is not a full image of evolution, and neither is what gets called natural selection. The moment you see things like evolution weeding out the weak, it is a sign you are dealing with an incomplete view of evolution - a social darwinism, a popularized version, a Spencerian version, and a problematic version.

Well, perhaps it's better to say evolution weeds out the weak and devolution favors the weak. If there are no antibiotics present, then there is no resistance to overcome and therefore evolution doesn't take place, but devolution (the weak are favored). Evolution only works if there is resistance of it.

We fight natural selection with antibiotics which empowers natural selection to select for strains that resist our drugs. We fight natural selection with herbicides which empowers natural selection to favor weeds that resist chemicals. We can't put out fires with gasoline and by trying to solve our problems we sometimes fan the flames.

Sure, there's that. But that's not the only way. It is not dependent on technology, even elephants do this. And, of course, not all technology has these kinds of feedback problems.

If there is ample grass and few predators, the grazers will devolve into short-legged eating machines. But if there are lots of predators and little grass, then grazers will evolve into runners, browsers. In the grasslands we have buffalo and in the mountains we have deer. Evolution overcomes the pressure put on it.

In other ways, we are natural selection. We are currently selecting masculine women and feminine men. All domesticated animals have been selected for by us and the only reason they exist is that we guard them. All of our food has been naturally selected by us: tomatoes, corn, taters, beans, you name it. None of that existed before we made it, er, selected it.

Right, all those plants are pussies. Lol.

Yes of course because if we weren't around to protect them, they'd be wiped out. Nothing is more helpless than a peking duck. Owls, turtles, coyotes, coons, everything is wanting to eat the duck and it can do nothing to protect itself other than having us building cages around it. I have netting, chicken wire, and electric fencing around mine and the turtles still get in.

What is better or good? What survives is the test for what is good. "Good" cannot be presumed or evolution would be pointless. All of this would be pointless if the universe already knew what it was going out to discover.

OK, but it seemed like you were saying that capitalism was better since it undermined communism.

I was just saying all is fair in love and war.

I was questioning that in specific. Now you seem to be questioning the idea of evaluating good or better at all.

"Good" only exists in relation to some defined goal.

IOW you are argreeing with my conclusion but supporting it with an argument at a higher level of abstraction, one which contradicts your first evaluation.

But now imagine a system where all these behaviours are rated as either positive or negative and distilled into a single number, according to rules set by the government. That would create your Citizen Score and it would tell everyone whether or not you were trustworthy. Plus, your rating would be publicly ranked against that of the entire population and used to determine your eligibility for a mortgage or a job, where your children can go to school - or even just your chances of getting a date.

As soon as they've defined a merit system like that, they've defined the "weak and degenerate". And that presumes one can know what weak means.

An exhaustive, unrelenting process will defeat a guided, presumptuous process in time, every time.

Eternal Recurrence is greatly practiced in ILP like the Phoenix rising out of the ashes being renewed and transformed into another skin. I daresay that Carleas is both stoic and practical in allowing it...but I may be wrong in that latter regard.

Eternal Banishment, my foot!

**************

As Elie put it in his first classic work, Night, “to forget would not only be dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time” • The danger of silence in the face of evil – the imperative of standing up against injustice. As Elie put it in his 1986 Nobel Prize lecture, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor never the victim, silence encourages the tormentor never the tormented... wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.” And he added: “there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time where we fail to protest against injustice.”

"The danger of state sanctioned cultures of hate – the responsibility to prevent. The enduring lessons of the Holocaust, and the genocides that followed in Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur – where Elie sounded the alarm again and again – is that the Shoah, and these genocides, occurred not only because of the machinery of death but because of state sanctioned ideologies of hate. It is this teaching of contempt, this demonizing of the other, this is where it all begins."

"The danger of indifference and inaction in the face of mass atrocity and genocide – the responsibility to protect."[/b]

[b]"What made the Holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda so unspeakable was not only the horror of the genocides themselves but that these genocides were preventable. We knew and we did not act, just as we knew and did not act in the genocide in Darfur, and just as we know and have not acted in the mass atrocities in Syria. As Elie warned us again and again, indifference in the face of evil is acquiescence with evil itself – it is complicity with evil."[/b]

"[b]And as Elie would add: “It is our responsibility to confront evil, as Raoul Wallenberg did, to resist it, to expose it – particularly when evil masks itself under the cover of law.” For let us not forget, on this the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Race Laws and the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, that the Nazis committed mass murder under the cover of law, aided and abetted by the Nuremberg elites – doctors, lawyers, judges, educators – la trahison des clercs."

"The danger of anti-Semitism; simply put – 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz, 1.1 million of them were Jews, of which Elie was one. One million of them were murdered, including Elie’s parents and sister. But let there be no mistake about it: Jews died at Auschwitz because of anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism itself did not die. And Jew-hatred remains the canary in the mineshaft of global evil that threatens us all."

The closing excerpt from this Declaration is as follows: “...That never again will we be indifferent to incitement and hate. That never again will we be silent in the face of evil. That never again will we indulge racism and anti-Semitism.

That never again will we be indifferent to the plight of the vulnerable. That never again will we be indifferent to mass atrocity and impunity. But we will speak and we will act against racism, against hate, against anti-Semitism, against mass atrocity, against injustice – and against the crime of crimes we should even shudder to mention – genocide.”

Eternal Recurrence is greatly practiced in ILP like the Phoenix rising out of the ashes being renewed and transformed into another skin. I daresay that Carleas is both stoic and practical in allowing it...but I may be wrong in that latter regard.

Eternal Banishment, my foot!

The intent is for eternal banishment... regardless of the actuality.

As Elie put it in his first classic work, Night, “to forget would not only be dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time” • The danger of silence in the face of evil – the imperative of standing up against injustice. As Elie put it in his 1986 Nobel Prize lecture, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor never the victim, silence encourages the tormentor never the tormented... wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.” And he added: “there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time where we fail to protest against injustice.”

"The danger of state sanctioned cultures of hate – the responsibility to prevent. The enduring lessons of the Holocaust, and the genocides that followed in Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur – where Elie sounded the alarm again and again – is that the Shoah, and these genocides, occurred not only because of the machinery of death but because of state sanctioned ideologies of hate. It is this teaching of contempt, this demonizing of the other, this is where it all begins."

"The danger of indifference and inaction in the face of mass atrocity and genocide – the responsibility to protect."[/b]

[b]"What made the Holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda so unspeakable was not only the horror of the genocides themselves but that these genocides were preventable. We knew and we did not act, just as we knew and did not act in the genocide in Darfur, and just as we know and have not acted in the mass atrocities in Syria. As Elie warned us again and again, indifference in the face of evil is acquiescence with evil itself – it is complicity with evil."[/b]

"[b]And as Elie would add: “It is our responsibility to confront evil, as Raoul Wallenberg did, to resist it, to expose it – particularly when evil masks itself under the cover of law.” For let us not forget, on this the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Race Laws and the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, that the Nazis committed mass murder under the cover of law, aided and abetted by the Nuremberg elites – doctors, lawyers, judges, educators – la trahison des clercs."

"The danger of anti-Semitism; simply put – 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz, 1.1 million of them were Jews, of which Elie was one. One million of them were murdered, including Elie’s parents and sister. But let there be no mistake about it: Jews died at Auschwitz because of anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism itself did not die. And Jew-hatred remains the canary in the mineshaft of global evil that threatens us all."

The closing excerpt from this Declaration is as follows: “...That never again will we be indifferent to incitement and hate. That never again will we be silent in the face of evil. That never again will we indulge racism and anti-Semitism.

That never again will we be indifferent to the plight of the vulnerable. That never again will we be indifferent to mass atrocity and impunity. But we will speak and we will act against racism, against hate, against anti-Semitism, against mass atrocity, against injustice – and against the crime of crimes we should even shudder to mention – genocide.”

If you ban something, you only make it stronger. Evolution thrives on resistance! However if an ideology is truly stupid, then let it be stupid for all to see.

We see this today in Twitter trying to silence the Right through shadowbanning, but that very effort is strengthening the resolve of Trumpers. Twitter is empowering its enemy via its efforts to silence them.